Everybody Has a Plan

So, the Crucifixion was "plan B"? That makes everybody but you a heretic.

Just trying to square genuine human freedom with the divine will. Gemini, I reckon you know a lot about flamboyant theological adventurers. You ever come across anything like Plan B? Or am I the only one?

While the predominant theological view is that the Crucifixion was part of God's foreordained plan for salvation, there are indeed theologians who propose alternative perspectives emphasizing human freedom. These views often fall under the umbrella of open theism or process theology.

Here's a breakdown of their general arguments:

• Emphasis on Genuine Human Freedom: These theologians argue that for human beings to have genuine freedom and moral responsibility, their choices cannot be exhaustively known or determined by God beforehand. If God knew every detail of the future, including the decisions leading to Jesus' crucifixion, then the actions of those involved (Judas, Pilate, the Jewish authorities, etc.) would not be truly free. They would merely be acting out a pre-written script.
• God's Relational Nature: Some theologians in these traditions emphasize God's relational and responsive nature. They suggest that God interacts with the world and humanity in a dynamic way, adapting to the choices and actions of free creatures. From this perspective, the Crucifixion wasn't a fixed point in a divine blueprint but rather a tragic consequence of the interplay of human decisions and circumstances.
• Reinterpreting Divine Foreknowledge: These theologians often redefine divine foreknowledge. Instead of God having exhaustive and meticulous knowledge of all future events, they might suggest that God knows possibilities and probabilities, or that God's foreknowledge is intertwined with God's intentions and responses to the unfolding of history.
• The Crucifixion as a Tragic Contingency: From this viewpoint, while God may have desired reconciliation and redemption for humanity, the specific event of the Crucifixion was not necessarily preordained. It was a result of the specific historical, political, and religious forces at play, combined with the free choices of individuals. God then worked within these tragic circumstances to bring about salvation.

Key Theological Movements and Thinkers:

• Open Theism: This relatively recent theological movement explicitly challenges the traditional understanding of exhaustive divine foreknowledge. Open theists argue that the future is partly open, shaped by the free choices of humans and even influenced by God's responses to those choices. They would likely view the Crucifixion as a result of human freedom gone awry, which God then used for redemptive purposes. 
• Process Theology: This theological perspective, influenced by the philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead, views God as being in a dynamic relationship with the world, constantly interacting with and being affected by creation. Process theologians see God as luring and persuading rather than unilaterally determining events. The Crucifixion, in this view, would be seen as a consequence of the free choices of individuals within a specific historical context, a tragedy that God experienced alongside humanity and ultimately used redemptively. 

But what about prophecy?

Well, there are plenty of contingent, "if then," prophecies sprinkled throughout scripture. Besides, even a pagan could see it coming. Andrew Klavan writes that 

Christ’s life is the fulfillment of the prophecy spoken by Glaucon in Plato’s Republic, that if the best man should come into the world..., he will at last be seized by the unjust -- in the heated defense of the ideologies that make them seem just to themselves, no doubt. He will be whipped and racked, bound and blinded and finally crucified, Glaucon said. And this, the Gospels tell us, is exactly what happened.

Thus, a tragic consequence of the interplay of human decisions and circumstances. And if even Glaucon could see it coming, certainly God could, for God knows all possibilities and probabilities, and these contingencies are intertwined with his intentions and responses to the unfolding of history.

As an aside, Roger Kimball writes that

In 1911, the poet-philosopher T. E. Hulme observed that “there must be one word in the language spelt in capital letters. For a long time, and still for sane people, the word was God. Then one became bored with the letter ‘G,’ and went on to ‘R,’ and for a hundred years it was Reason, and now all the best people take off their hats and lower their voices when they speak of Life.”

What, for the Racccon, must be spelt in capital letters? Yes, God, by which we mean the Absolute. But this Absolute is by definition Infinite and therefore Free. It is also Rational, AKA Logos, so Absolute-Infinite-Freedom-Intellect. Anything else? 

Trinity?

Yes, which goes back to what Gemini says above about God's relational and responsive nature, and how he interacts with the world and humanity in a dynamic way. Thus, each of our capitalized properties is intrinsically Relational. The principle of creation is rooted in a dynamic Otherness built into the Godhead. 

So, I think all of these capitalized principles must be brought to bear in contemplating the Incarnation, which, after all, incarnates each of these principles, including Freedom. Otherwise I don't get the point.

John Sanders touches on this in The God Who Risks. Jesus, of course, prays "if it is possible" to "let this cup pass from me." Thus, "he shows some hesitancy now. Is the path set in concrete? Must Jesus go this route even if he has misgivings?" Clearly then he

wrestles with God's will because he does not believe that everything must happen according to a predetermined plan.... The Son is not following a script but is living in dynamic relationship with the Father....

Although Scripture attests that the Incarnation was planned from the creation of the world, this is not so with the cross. The path of the cross comes about only through God's interaction with humans in history. Until this moment in history other routes were, perhaps, open (emphasis mine). 

Perhaps. Nevertheless, "The notion that the cross in particular was not planned prior to creation will seem scandalous to some readers." But in reality, "All that is required is that the incarnation of the Son was decided on from the beginning as part of the divine project."

In fact -- this is just me -- but if I came up with a project in which I foresaw with complete certitude that my son would be hideously tortured and murdered, then maybe I'd put the kibosh on it and come up with a different plan? 

But in point of fact, everybody has a plan until they get punched in the mouth, in this case, by human freedom. Humans not only have a say in God's plan, but history proves pretty conclusively that they oppose the plan at every turn. Moreover, they have a lot of help, if you believe in adverse spiritual forces higher up than we are, i.e., hostile powers and principalities. 

And now I'm thinking back to the events of Genesis 3. After the dirty deed, God asks Adam Where are you? Traditionalists will say that this is just a figure of speech, and that of course God knows where Adam is. 

But if Adam is genuinely free -- free to reject God -- then this is a kind of "place" God doesn't know about until it happens. Certainly he knew it as a possibility, but not as a certainty until human freedom renders it certain.

"The image depicts a dramatic representation of the crucifixion intertwined with imagery representing human free will. It's rendered in a chiaroscuro style with dark, stormy clouds swirling around the cross, emphasizing the tension and pathos of the moment. The cross is adorned with intricate designs symbolizing the choices and consequences inherent to human free will."